Issue 52: July 2018

As we move into the second half of 2018, the constant struggle to maintain and improve readiness, training, and morale in our military is becoming more intense in courtrooms as well as in the Pentagon.

This edition of CMR E-Notes provides good news regarding President Donald Trump's efforts to deliver on his promise to end extreme political correctness in our military. We also analyze attempts to stop him by misusing the legal system.

LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) activist groups representing transgender plaintiffs have stepped up their efforts to nullify President Trump's transgender policies, filing in federal court a Motion to Compel the Center for Military Readiness to produce emails and other documents related to the Trump Administration's transgender policies.

The attempt to intimidate and silence CMR will not work. We have just published a new CMR Policy Analysis, which provides an overview of legal arguments being used by both sides.

In addition, CMR has just posted a new article about promising changes in Army training policies. For more information on these topics, read on:

1. Update #2: Presidential Authority vs. Activist Judges

In April, CMR published the most comprehensive analysis of the new policy regarding transgenders, which Defense Secretary James Mattis recommended, and President Trump approved in March after many months of study:

In May, we issued a news release providing an update on litigation filed against President Trump in Washington, D.C., Baltimore, MD, Seattle, WA, and the Central District of California. We also reported on subpoenas that LGBT activist attorneys slapped on "non-party" groups, including CMR, as part of the "discovery" process in these cases. Four district judges have issued preliminary injunctions to suspend implementation of the new Mattis/DoD policy and to restore transgender mandates imposed by former Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and President Barack Obama.

In response, the Department of Justice has filed powerful arguments in defense of President Trump's powers as Commander in Chief to make policy under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. The government's legal briefs affirm both the substance and process justifying new policies regarding transgenders in the military, which President Trump approved on March 23.

To shed light on the ongoing legal debate, CMR has prepared this comprehensive CMR Policy Analysis, summarizing and quoting the main legal arguments being raised by both sides in court:

The CMR Policy Analysis shows that the LGBT Left activist attorneys have a weak case, and the Department of Justice is doing a fine job defending presidential prerogatives and sound policies regarding persons who are confused about their sexual identity.

Now the plaintiffs' attorneys are stepping up harassment tactics and legal intimidation against CMR and other outside "non-party" groups. Starting in February, CMR and three other organizations have received two subpoenas from attorneys representing plaintiffs in the Washington, D.C. case (Jane Doe v. Trump).

The subpoenas demand that CMR produce correspondence, emails, and other communications with the White House and Department of Defense - to include all emails presenting our views on the issue of transgenders in the military from January 20, 2017, (Inauguration Day) through September 1, 2017. The second subpoena in the Doe case expanded the dates from September 1 through "the present."

The third subpoena, served on May 3 on behalf of plaintiffs in the Seattle case (Karnoski & State of Washington v. Trump) demanded that CMR produce all emails and documents from June 16, 2015 -- the day that businessman Donald Trump descended the New York escalator to announce his candidacy - to "the present."

These intrusive demands on the time and resources of CMR are a form of legal harassment designed to "chill" our First Amendment rights to petition the government on matters of public policy. This is happening even though CMR is not a party in the ongoing lawsuits and had no role in formulating military transgender policies of the Trump Administration.

CMR objected to all the subpoenas for many reasons, as did the other targeted organizations in separate actions. On July 3, plaintiff attorneys in the Karnoski case filed in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan a Motion to Compel Michigan-based CMR to produce all demanded documents.

CMR is prepared to respond to the Motion to Compel within the required two weeks; we will not release any documents unless ordered to do so by a federal court.

Attorneys representing LGBT plaintiffs and allies, including the entire state of Washington, seem to have unlimited funds to file subpoenas against anyone they disagree with. This is a coordinated, nationwide attempt to prove what amounts to a conspiracy theory: that President Trump was motivated by "animus" against transgender personnel, not the best professional advice of military officials.

CMR will not be intimidated or silenced. Watch for more updates on future developments.

2. Pentagon Changes Direction on LGBT Pride Month

Here's some good news: The Department of Defense did not sponsor an official special interest LGBT Pride Month event for gay and transgender activists and personnel at the Pentagon in June. This is the second time that President Donald J. Trump did not renew President Barack Obama's annual declaration of June as LGBT Pride Month. Details are here:

Much to the dismay of LGBT groups and a few protesting members of Congress, this positive change in direction indicates that President Trump is delivering on his promise to end extreme political correctness in our military and other institutions of American life.

We are pleased to see real progress on this issue, which has been a source of division and controversy for many years. Anyone who wishes to express approval via email, phone call, or letter, can reach President Trump and Administration officials through WhiteHouse.gov.

Both moves advance priorities set by President Trump and Defense Secretary Mattis: mission readiness and combat lethality. However, as CMR explains in this article, Army officials will have to be completely candid in monitoring results of these changes:

Now that women are eligible for involuntary assignment to direct ground combat (infantry) units, it is important to know whether officials are maintaining focus on high standards, or whether they will continue to implement Obama-era "gender diversity metrics" (quotas), which are unfair to both men and women in the military.

CMR will continue to report on and analyze the military personnel policies, measuring them against paramount goals that improve military readiness, not detract from it.

* * * * * *

The Center for Military Readiness is an independent, non-partisan, 501(c)(3) public policy organization, founded in 1993, which reports on and analyzes military/social issues. More information is available on the CMR website, www.cmrlink.org.